For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:
They were the sons of Benjamin.
“The sons of Benjamin: Bela and Becher and Ashbel, Gera and Naaman, Ehi and Rosh, Muppim and Huppim and Ard.” (Genesis 46:21)
They were the grandsons of Benjamin.
“The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the family of the Ardites; of Naaman, the family of the Naamites.” (Numbers 26:40)
(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)
Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:
- When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
- One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible. See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
- A bit of background of each verse in its context might be helpful for readers.
- The context of Genesis 46:21 is situated in a chapter recording those of Jacob’s lineage who went to Egypt.
- The context of Numbers 26:40 is situated in a chapter recording the result of a census of the second generation of those who escaped Egypt during the Exodus.
- The skeptic tries to pit the verse Genesis 46:21 which affirm “Naaman and Ard were the sons of Benjamin” against Numbers 26:40 which affirm “Naaman and Ard were the grandsons of Benjamin.” The phrase “sons of Bela” appear in Numbers 26:40. So what is the relationship between Benjamin and Bela?
- According to both Genesis 46:21 and Numbers 26:38 it states that Bela was the son of Benjamin.
- This is affirmed in 1 Chronicles 8:1 which states “And Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, Aharah the third.” Bela being the firstborn of Benjamin indicates that Bela is the son of Benjamin.
- 1 Chronicles 8:3-4 is also explicit that Naaman is the son of Bela.
- If Benjamin is the father of Bela who then is also the “father” of both Naaman and Ard then there is not a contradiction here in light of the use of Hebrew term for “son” to say Naaman and Ard were both the sons of Bela and the “sons” of Benjamin. The Hebrew word for “son” in both Genesis 46:21 and Numbers 26:40 is בֵּן. The range of meaning for בֵּן include “son” but it can also be translate in English as “grandson.”
- We see this in Genesis 31:55 where Laban kisses his grandchildren though it uses the Hebrew word בֵּן. The Hebrew word for son allows for its use to include grandson.
- We have also seen instance of this Hebrew word meaning “grandson” in the Old Testament in our previous post “Who Was Achan’s father?“
- Another example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson can be seen in our previous post “Who was Laban’s father?“
- Still yet another example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson can be seen in our previous post “
- Was Zechariah Iddo’s son or grandson?“
- Yet one more example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson” can be seen in our post “Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi?“
- Finally there’s the example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson” in our post “Who was Korah’s father?“
- Thus there is no contradiction here if we understand that the Hebrew word בֵּן can mean both “son” and “grandson.”
- Some might object that the possible range of meaning for בֵּן meaning “son” and “grandson” is illegitimate since there’s two possible meaning of the term when one should have one meaning. But that’s a terrible objection. Terms can have more than one meaning in many languages and not just with Hebrew. For instance consider the lexical range of meaning for the English word Whoppers and the Word “Left”.
- We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”
[…] Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin? […]
Young people face a lot of attacks against God’s Word on the internet. This is a good response for those who are looking for good answers.
Thanks for this thorough rebuttal of another alleged “contradiction.” I’m embarrassed for Steve/Stephen Wells that he keeps cherry picking this same son/grandson “contradiction.” Though he claims to have studied the Bible for twenty years, I imagine students of Bible Hebrew come across this particular custom/tradition fairly quickly.
He doesn’t seem to blush! Instead he piles up more to his list with these fallacious word meaning fallacy! I suspect he just wants to make his list looks impressive in terms of numbers of alleged problems with the Bible. That’s also contrary to academic integrity. I shouldn’t be surprised but it seems that people will twist the Word in ignorant ways for their agenda be it cultists or skeptics and even papists…
RE: That’s also contrary to academic integrity.
Yeah, to keep accumulating “contradictions” based upon this singular misunderstanding of Hebrew is like pathetically shooting ducks in a barrel and bragging about hunting prowess. A true scholar would have smelled a rat after a few occurrences and checked his/her premise.
Amen. He is to the Left of God, for sure.:)
Yeah I pray for Steve Well, the person behind this popular skeptic website, would repent and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus as Savior. I’m constantly surprised at how bad his reading comprehension skill is, even though I probably shouldn’t after refuting over a hundred alleged Bible contradictions from his list. It definitely shows he’s got more an agenda in his heart to not believe in the Bible rather than have actual grounds to reject the Bible from proper reading of Scripture, doesn’t it? Certainly there’s spiritual warfare going on, right?
Warfare for sure. The rage against truth is ramping up and I see no quelling to this fire.:*(
It seems that the skeptic isn’t concerned about the truth, but what kind of argument he can make against The Bible. I think most knowledgeable Christian wouldn’t fall for the case he makes but the sad part is that other nonbelievers probably swallow it willingly.
That sad part you mentioned is sad: nonbelievers would swallow it willingly the lies by Steve Wells that this is a Bible contradiction, when it isn’t. Its a shame. I prayed today for Steve Well’s salvation, that he comes to know Jesus Christ as Savior, want to join me in praying for him today? =)
Amen! I just did!
Rather trivial of the atheists to bring this up. Good response though.
These guys are going to strain at gnats and still get it wrong.
[…] 2.) Bible Contradiction? Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin? […]
Why would the skeptics think this is a contradictions?
Probably because they are trying too hard to find reasons to dismiss God in their lives.
[…] Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin? […]
[…] be translate in English as “grandson.” This mistake can be seen when the skeptic asked “Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?” This particular error frequently appear in the Skeptic Annotated […]
[…] Tweeted by @jwarnerwallace https://twitter.com/jwarnerwallace/status/1157395678617907201 from Church On The Net Today Read Article . . . […]
Seems like the skeptic know nothing about בֵּן.
[…] Finally there’s the example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson” in our post “Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?“ […]
Atheist don’t know what they are talking about
You wrecking the skeptics’ case a few verses at a time!
[…] Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin? […]
The skeptic is acting like a divorced couple, nitpicking the smallest and nonexistent things to complain about
[…] Finally there is the example of the Hebrew word בֵּן meaning “grandson” in our post “Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?“ […]
If you think the Bible is in error, read it again ready to be corrected
So the skeptic stumbled on בֵּן . LOL.
I sense an immediate rejection of atheists reading your explanation, its too strong to refute by them. Better to ignore it, they reason, but to their own judgment by God in the end.
If it is skeptics vs. God, I’m going to go with God
[…] Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi?“, “Who was Korah’s father?“, “Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?“ and Who were the sons of […]